Explore the vast range of titles available.

Oral probiotic supplementation may be a beneficial adjunctive therapy for patients with symptomatic COVID-19. However, its safety and efficacy are unclear. We aimed to investigate how probiotic supplementation impacts COVID-19 symptom trajectory and patient outcomes by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs randomizing patients with COVID-19 to probiotics were searched in PubMed Central, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 31, 2022. We performed a random-effects pairwise meta-analysis for all outcomes using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimator. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. A total of 1027 participants from eight RCT studies were included in the meta-analysis. Probiotic supplements probably reduce the incidence of diarrhea (RR 0.61 [0.43 to 0.87]; moderate certainty) and probably reduce cough or dyspnea compared to placebo/standard care (RR 0.37 [0.19 to 0.73]; moderate certainty). Probiotic supplements may improve composite endpoint measured by clinical escalation or mortality compared to placebo (RR 0.41 [0.18 to 0.93]; low certainty evidence); however, they may not significantly reduce the need for clinical escalation (RR 0.57 [0.31 to 1.07]; low certainty evidence) or mortality (RR 0.50 [0.20 to 1.29]; low certainty evidence). In addition, the probiotic supplement is associated with reduced adverse events (RR 0.62 [0.46 to 0.83]; moderate certainty). Early probiotic supplement is a safe and effective adjunctive therapy that reduces the risk of symptoms and health care burden related to COVID-19 across all severity types.

Background Magnesium supplementation is often purported to improve sleep; however, as both an over-the-counter sleep aid and a complementary and alternative medicine, there is limited evidence to support this assertion. The aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of magnesium supplementation for older adults with insomnia. Methods A search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine, clinicaltrials.gov and two grey literature databases comparing magnesium supplementation to placebo or no treatment. Outcomes were sleep quality, quantity, and adverse events. Risk of bias and quality of evidence assessments were carried out using the RoB 2.0 and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approaches. Data was pooled and treatment effects were quantified using mean differences. For remaining outcomes, a modified effects direction plot was used for data synthesis. Results Three randomized control trials (RCT) were identified comparing oral magnesium to placebo in 151 older adults in three countries. Pooled analysis showed that post-intervention sleep onset latency time was 17.36 min less after magnesium supplementation compared to placebo (95% CI − 27.27 to − 7.44, p  = 0.0006). Total sleep time improved by 16.06 min in the magnesium supplementation group but was statistically insignificant. All trials were at moderate-to-high risk of bias and outcomes were supported by low to very low quality of evidence. Conclusion This review confirms that the quality of literature is substandard for physicians to make well-informed recommendations on usage of oral magnesium for older adults with insomnia. However, given that oral magnesium is very cheap and widely available, RCT evidence may support oral magnesium supplements (less than 1 g quantities given up to three times a day) for insomnia symptoms.

Randomized trial evidence suggests that some antiviral drugs are effective in patients with COVID-19. However, the comparative effectiveness of antiviral drugs in nonsevere COVID-19 is unclear. We searched the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE (Living Overview of Evidence) database for randomized trials comparing antiviral treatments, standard care or placebo in adult patients with nonsevere COVID-19 up to Apr. 25, 2022. Reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We identified 41 trials, which included 18 568 patients. Compared with standard care or placebo, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir–ritonavir each reduced risk of death with moderate certainty (10.9 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.6 to 4.5 fewer for molnupiravir; 11.7 fewer deaths per 1000, 95% CI 13.1 fewer to 2.6 more). Compared with molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir–ritonavir probably reduced risk of hospital admission (27.8 fewer admissions per 1000, 95% CI 32.8 to 18.3 fewer; moderate certainty). Remdesivir probably has no effect on risk of death, but may reduce hospital admissions (39.1 fewer admissions per 1000, 95% CI 48.7 to 13.7 fewer; low certainty). Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir–ritonavir probably reduce risk of hospital admissions and death among patients with nonsevere COVID-19. Nirmatrelvir–ritonavir is probably more effective than molnupiravir for reducing risk of hospital admissions. Most trials were conducted with unvaccinated patients, before the emergence of the Omicron variant; the effectiveness of these drugs must thus be tested among vaccinated patients and against newer variants.

Risk prediction scores are important tools to support clinical decision-making for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The objective of this paper was to validate the 4C mortality score, originally developed in the United Kingdom, for a Canadian population, and to examine its performance over time. We conducted an external validation study within a registry of COVID-19 positive hospital admissions in the Kitchener-Waterloo and Hamilton regions of southern Ontario between March 4, 2020 and June 13, 2021. We examined the validity of the 4C score to prognosticate in-hospital mortality using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals calculated via bootstrapping. The study included 959 individuals, of whom 224 (23.4%) died in-hospital. Median age was 72 years and 524 individuals (55%) were male. The AUC of the 4C score was 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.79–0.87. Overall mortality rates across the pre-defined risk groups were 0% (Low), 8.0% (Intermediate), 27.2% (High), and 54.2% (Very High). Wave 1, 2 and 3 values of the AUC were 0.81 (0.76, 0.86), 0.74 (0.69, 0.80), and 0.76 (0.69, 0.83) respectively. The 4C score is a valid tool to prognosticate mortality from COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals and can be used to prioritize care and resources for patients at greatest risk of death.

BackgroundThe relative efficacy of calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and cyclosporine in lung transplantation remains unclear. To clarify, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched through EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL until 23 October 2023 for randomised trials comparing tacrolimus with cyclosporine in lung transplant recipients. Data extraction and bias risk assessment were done independently. Analyses included random effects pairwise meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis, with GRADE system for evidence certainty.ResultsWe found four eligible trials totalling 662 patients. Tacrolimus significantly reduces the risk of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (RR 0.46, high certainty) and likely decreases acute rejection risk (RR 0.83, moderate certainty), with no clear difference in mortality (RR 1.08, low certainty). It may raise new-onset diabetes mellitus (RR 4.17, low certainty) and renal dysfunction risks (RR 1.27, low certainty).ConclusionTacrolimus likely lowers acute rejection and chronic dysfunction risks in lung transplant recipients without improving survival rates. However, it might increase the chances of developing diabetes mellitus and renal dysfunction. These findings guide the choice between tacrolimus and cyclosporine, balancing benefits against potential risks.

Background Acute gastric dilatation (AGD) leading to gastric necrosis and perforation has been reported to be a rare but fatal complication in young patients with eating disorders, particularly anorexia nervosa. Case presentation We report a case of a Canadian female patient presenting with mild abdominal pain, with a history of anorexia nervosa, the binge/purge subtype, who was found to have severe acute gastric dilatation on subsequent computed tomography imaging. Her clinical course was uncomplicated after gastric decompression. The cause of her AGD was thought to be secondary to dysmotility disorder caused by her anorexia nervosa. Conclusion Our case report demonstrates the importance of clinical identification of AGD and subsequent diagnosis and management. Because of the urgency to rule out obstruction or perforation through consultation or additional imaging modalities, recognition and correct diagnosis of this condition is necessary for appropriate patient management. In addition, our case report adds to an underreported but important complication of anorexia nervosa.

ObjectiveTo address the efficacy and safety of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of biologic drugs for patients with inflammatory bowel disease, inflammatory arthritis, and psoriasis.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Central, and CINAHL, from database inception to 23 May 2024.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesTrials including people with inflammatory bowel disease, inflammatory arthritis, and psoriasis were selected. Selected trials also randomly assigned people to either proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors or other biologic drugs in the intervention group, and to either no therapeutic drug monitoring or standard care in the control group. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen search records and collect data from eligible trials. For each outcome, a frequentist, pairwise, random effects meta-analysis was done and the certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations).ResultsOf 10 eligible trials identified, reporting on 2383 patients, two investigated induction with infliximab (533 patients), four assessed maintenance with infliximab (901 patients), and three assessed maintenance with adalimumab (710 patients). One trial was of maintenance with infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept (239 patients). For patients who had induction with infliximab, the effects of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring on remission and adverse events were uncertain. Low certainty evidence suggested that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring may have little or no effect on disease activity, physical function, mental health, and quality of life. For patients who had maintenance with infliximab, low certainty evidence suggested that proactive therapeutic drug monitoring may increase the proportion of patients who had sustained disease control or remission (relative risk 1.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.40), absolute risk difference of 146 more per 1000 patients treated for one year (95% CI 78 to 224). Additionally, this treatment and monitoring may reduce disease worsening, and may have little or no effect on disease activity, physical function, mental health, and quality of life. The effects of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab on adverse events and formation of anti-drug antibodies were uncertain. For patients who had maintenance with adalimumab, the effects of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring were uncertain.ConclusionProactive therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab during maintenance may help patients to have sustained disease control or remission. No compelling evidence supported the effectiveness of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of infliximab during induction or proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of adalimumab during maintenance.Systematic review registrationhttps://osf.io/x4m28/.

BackgroundUp to 15% of survivors of COVID-19 infection experience long-term health effects, including fatigue, myalgia and impaired cognitive function, termed post-COVID-19 condition or long COVID. Several trials that study the benefits and harms of various interventions to manage long COVID have been published and hundreds more are planned or are ongoing. Trustworthy systematic reviews that clarify the benefits and harms of interventions are critical to promote evidence-based practice.ObjectiveTo create and maintain a living systematic review and network meta-analysis addressing the benefits and harms of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions for the treatment and management of long COVID.MethodsEligible trials will randomise adults with long COVID to pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions, placebo, sham or usual care. We will identify eligible studies by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED and CENTRAL from inception, without language restrictions.Reviewers will work independently and in duplicate to screen search records, collect data from eligible trials, including trial and patient characteristics and outcomes of interest and assess risk of bias. Our outcomes of interest will include patient-reported fatigue, pain, postexertional malaise, changes in education or employment status, cognitive function, mental health, dyspnoea, quality of life, physical function, recovery and serious adverse events.For each outcome, when possible, we will perform a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis. When there are compelling reasons to suspect that certain interventions are only applicable or effective for a subtype of long COVID, we will perform separate network meta-analyses. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach will guide our assessment of the certainty of evidence.We will update our living review biannually, on the publication of a seminal trial, or when new evidence emerges that may change clinical practice.ConclusionThis living systematic review and network meta-analysis will provide comprehensive, trustworthy and up-to-date summaries of the evidence addressing the benefits and harms of interventions for the treatment and management of long COVID. We will make our findings available publicly and work with guideline-producing organisations to inform their recommendations.Ethics and disseminationThe study describes the protocol for a systematic review that uses data from published trial reports. Therefore, the study is exempt from ethics review. We intend to deposit all data in a public repository and publish each iteration of the living review online.